W5: Types of Crime: Violent, Property & White-Collar

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar
Crime: A Comparison of Perceived Seriousness
and Punitiveness

Cedric Michel1

Published online: 21 August 2015
� Springer Science+ Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Recent studies have challenged traditional wisdom regarding public apathy
about white-collar crime by revealing equal or greater perceived seriousness of these

offenses among respondents relative to traditional crime. Nevertheless, subjects in those

studies were generally asked to contrast white-collar crime scenarios with a non-violent

street crime baseline vignette. Perhaps a violent street crime would have invited lower

perceived seriousness for the white-collar offenses. Participants in the present study were

asked to (1) read vignettes describing violent street crimes and physically harmful white-

collar crimes, (2) compare their seriousness, and (3) determine appropriate sanctions.

Subjects perceived the violent crime scenarios presented to them to be more serious than

the harmful white-collar crime vignettes. Further, they were less punitive toward white-

collar offenders compared with street criminals. Implications of these findings are

discussed.

Introduction

The literature on perceptions of crime severity generally reveals high levels of consensus

among the American public (Grabosky et al. 1987; Hauber et al. 1988; Newman 1976;

Rossi et al. 1974; Scott and Al-Thakeb 1977; Thomas et al. 1976; Warr 1989; Wolfgang

et al. 1985). Phrased differently, widespread agreement seems to exist among all members

of society about perceived seriousness of, and response to, crime. Such consensus is

particularly evident regarding those offenses for which victims incur physical injury or

death (Blumstein and Cohen 1980; Carlson and Williams 1993; Cullen et al. 1985c; Heller

and McEwen 1975; Levi and Jones 1985; O’Connell and Whelan 1996; Roth 1978). It is

not certain, however, whether physical harm alone is sufficient in eliciting universal

& Cedric Michel
[email protected]

1
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Tampa, 401, W. Kennedy Blvd.,
Tampa, FL 33606-1490, USA

123

Crit Crim (2016) 24:127–143
DOI 10.1007/s10612-015-9295-2

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10612-015-9295-2&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s10612-015-9295-2&domain=pdf

condemnation or if the type of offense (i.e., street crime vs. white-collar crime) has a

determining influence on public perceptions. For example, a conservative estimate places

at 300,000 the number of people who die every year as a result of white-collar offenses.

This figure includes employees injured in the workplace or affected by toxic chemicals due

to the company’s lack of safety compliance, civilians exposed to toxic waste and deadly

pollutants, and consumers victims of faulty products, addictive substances, or subpar

medical services (Herbert and Landrigan 2000; Kramer 1984; Lynch and Michalowski

2006; Reiman 1998; Reiman and Leighton 2010; Starfield 2000). By comparison, criminal

homicide claims about 14,000 lives annually (UCR 2011). This staggering difference

should naturally translate into greater perceived seriousness of, and punitiveness toward,

white-collar crime. Yet, while public opinion about upper-world criminality has

undoubtedly become more negative in the last 40 years, there is little evidence of a

disproportionately higher concern about crimes of the powerful relative to street crime.

Public Attitudes About White-Collar Crime

In their review of empirical research on Americans’ attitudes about white-collar crime,

Cullen et al. (2009) identified a three-pronged evolution of public sentiments: (1) relative

inattention to the problem during the first half of the twentieth century (Ross 1907;

Sutherland 1949), (2) rising attention from the late 1970s to the early 2000s after infamous

cases such as the Watergate scandal or the Savings and Loan debacle (Cullen et al. 1982,

1983, 1985a, b; Evans et al. 1993; Frank et al. 1989; Goff and Nason-Clark 1989; Gra-

bosky et al. 1987; Hans and Ermann 1989; Meier and Short 1985; Rossi and Berk 1997;

Schrager and Short 1980), and (3) transformed attention in the last 15 years undoubtedly

heightened by the Enron and WorldCom fiascos and Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme

(Holtfreter et al. 2008; Huff et al. 2010; Kane and Wall 2006; Levi 2006, 2009; Piquero

et al. 2008; Rebovich et al. 2000; Schoepfer et al. 2007; Unnever et al. 2008, etc.). Far from

downplaying the importance of elite offenses, subjects in more recent studies often con-

sidered them to be as serious as street crimes. Further, they were generally inclined to

support tough punishments against their perpetrators.

These findings have important implications as they signal a hardening of public attitudes

toward white-collar criminals, whom are still significantly more likely to avoid criminal

prosecution and incarceration compared with street offenders (Calavita et al. 1997; Frie-

drichs 2010; Maddan et al. 2012; Tillman and Pontell 1992). Nevertheless, the conclusion

that Americans are now disposed to condone sanctions of equal or even greater severity

against white-collar crimes relative to traditional offenses may be premature. In fact, the

results found in several of these studies could have been biased by methodological choices

that favored the comparison of white-collar offense scenarios with street crime vignettes

describing a relatively low level of harm.

Methodological Issues

Every 5 years since 1999, the National White-Collar Crime Center—a congressionally

funded non-profit organization—has been surveying Americans’ attitudes about the seri-

ousness and impact of white-collar crime. The first iteration (Rebovich et al. 2000) asked

participants to compare a series of scenarios that described a traditional property crime

(i.e., theft) and white-collar financial crimes (i.e., fraud, embezzlement, bribery, unnec-

essary repair, and false claim), as well as a violent street crime (i.e., armed robbery) and

physically harmful white-collar offenses (i.e., selling tainted meat, neglecting to recall a

128 C. Michel

123

potentially dangerous vehicle, etc.). In almost all cases, participants deemed the white-

collar crime vignettes to be as serious or more serious than the types of street crime

presented to them. A majority even considered allowing tainted meat to be sold and

making someone ill as a result to be more serious than armed robbery. The problem is that

the violent street crime scenario only mentioned that the victim suffered ‘‘serious injury’’.

Perhaps a street crime scenario describing homicide would have invited greater leniency

toward the offenders described in the white-collar crime vignettes. This limitation points to

the necessity of controlling for various levels of harm intensity.

The same criticism can be made regarding the second effort by the National White-

Collar Crime Center (Kane and Wall 2006). This time, participants were presented with

twelve scenarios that depicted (1) white-collar offenses (i.e., auction fraud, false earning

report, omission of safety report, insurance overcharge, embezzlement, database hack,

insurance fraud, and toxic waste) and (2) more traditional types of crime (i.e., burglary,

robbery, assault, and car jacking/murder). Respondents were then asked to compare the

seriousness of these offenses against a baseline street crime scenario that described motor-

vehicle theft. A majority considered the various instances of white-collar crime to be more

serious than the base crime, particularly those that caused physical harm. Once again,

however, perceived seriousness of elite offenses may have been artificially heightened by

the researchers’ choice of car theft (i.e., a non-violent crime) for comparison purposes. In

fact, carjacking/murder was considered to be the most serious offense on the list (relative

to car theft), way above any white-collar crime vignette.

A similar problem emerged in the third and latest iteration (Huff et al. 2010).

Researchers developed a series of short scenarios involving two street crimes (i.e., burglary

and assault), and nine different types of white-collar crime (i.e., embezzlement, identity

theft, false charges, hacking, falsely advertising as safe an anti-depressant drug, espionage,

market rigging, insurance overcharge, and counterfeit sales). Once again, participants were

asked to compare the seriousness of each offense described in these scenarios with a base

crime depicting car theft. Not surprisingly, survey results indicated that respondents

considered white-collar crime to be more serious than traditional crime. More specifically,

crimes that involved direct physical harm (e.g., distributing an anti-depressant drug that

caused random violent acts and deaths) were perceived to be more serious than the crimes

that only resulted in monetary loss. As previously mentioned, however, perhaps the choice

of car theft (i.e., a non-violent property crime) for comparison purposes can explain these

results.

Rationale for the Present Study

Research suggests that public support for ‘‘tough-on-crime’’ policies stems from fear of

crime (Dowler 2003). Evidently, crimes that elicit the greatest fear are those for which

victims incur the most harm (e.g., physical injury, illness, or death). It should come as no

surprise that the National White-Collar Crime Center survey’s subjects would find espi-

onage (especially in post-911 America) or distributing a dangerous medication to be more

serious than car theft. It is unclear, however, whether similar results would have continued

to emerge after a direct comparison of white-collar offenses—even physically harmful

ones—with a violent street crime such as first-degree murder.

One reason to expect a pattern reversal could be the negative label generally associated

with street crime (Hagan 1994). The seriousness construct involves not only harm but also

blameworthiness. Phrased differently, two offenses may cause the same amount of harm

without necessarily eliciting equally universal condemnation. The conventional construction

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 129

123

of crime assigns two distinct motives to the violent street offender and the corporate criminal:

one of malevolence for the former, and one of reckless disregard for the latter. According to

this assignment, rapists and murderers are perceived to injure and kill purposely whereas

harmfulness is rather considered a means to an end for business executives (e.g., the Ford

Pinto case). This double standard might find its origin in the primary source of public

knowledge about crime: the news media (Dowler 2003; Roberts and Doob 1990; Surette

1998). As a result of corporate allegiance, TV news outlets tend to place more emphasis on

street crime (Barak 1994; Barlow and Barlow 2010; Ericson et al. 1991; Lynch and

Michalowski 2006; Lynch et al. 1989, 2000). Further, even when corporate crime makes the

headlines (e.g., Enron’s meltdown, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, etc.), the focus is usually

on non-violent cases (Barlow and Barlow 2010), which incorrectly implies that upper class

offenders are less dangerous. Courts and academics alike have also justified this double

standard by focusing disproportionately on street criminals and relegating white-collar

offenses to the rank of victimless crimes (Croall 2007; Gustafson 2007; Wheeler et al. 1988).

Consequently, even if we can expect the public to recognize that white-collar criminals are

sometimes capable of calculated endangerment for profit, they might still evoke the image of

‘‘kinder and gentler’’ offenders (Perri 2011) compared with the perpetrators of violent street

crime.

The present study therefore proposes to address a possible limitation inherent in the

literature on public attitudes about white-collar crime by comparing perceived seriousness

of, and punitiveness toward, physically harmful white-collar crimes with violent street

crimes (i.e., that cause physical injury, illness, or death). Importantly, instead of asking

subjects to rank the seriousness of these offenses individually or relative to a mid-level,

non-violent baseline crime (e.g., car theft), white-collar crime and street crime will be

compared against one another. If public attitudes have indeed evolved in the direction

suggested by the National White-Collar Crime Center, no significant differences should

emerge. Phrased differently, subjects should rate white-collar and street crime as equally

serious. After adjusting for harm intensity, however, we may expect dissensus in perceived

crime severity. That is, violent street crimes committed by disreputable individuals might

elicit more negative attitudes than physically harmful white-collar offenses. The following

hypotheses are tested:

Hypothesis 1 Subjects should evince lesser perceived seriousness of harmful white-
collar crimes compared with violent street crimes.

Hypothesis 2 Subjects should evince lesser punitiveness toward the perpetrators of
harmful white-collar offenses compared with violent street crime offenders.

Method

Sample Selection

Subjects in this study were recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, an online crowd-

sourcing platform that coordinates the supply and demand of human intelligence tasks

(HITS). A HIT is a relatively short assignment (e.g., a social science survey) that

‘‘Turkers’’ (i.e., anyone over the age of 18 with an Amazon.com account) choose to

complete on the Mechanical Turk website based on monetary compensation and time

allotted for completion. This innovative data collection method has recently become

130 C. Michel

123

increasingly popular in the social sciences (see, e.g., Filone et al. 2014; Martire et al. 2013;

Mathieu et al. 2013; Michel et al. 2014; Nadler and McDonnell 2011) because of its low

cost, convenience, acceptable response rate, sample representativeness, and reliability. An

empirical assessment by Paolacci et al. (2010) concluded that, although limited by their

non-probability nature, Mechanical Turk samples were qualitatively comparable to tradi-

tional college and Internet samples commonly used in social science research.

Data Collection Procedure

The survey was made available on Mechanical Turk on April 1st 2013. The Institutional

Review Board at the author’s former university approved the questionnaire, and every

effort was made to protect subjects’ anonymity. The target sample size was set at 500

participants, a figure successfully reached in previous research (see, e.g., Buhrmester et al.

Table 1 Sentiments about white-collar and street crime (N = 408)

Variables Coding/range Mean SD

Perceived seriousness of white-collar
crime and street crime

5 scenarios; 4-point ordinal scale (1 = not very
serious; 4 = very serious)

Consumer safety violations (toy) 3.43 .76

Murder 3.91 .36

Toxic dumping 3.51 .64

Rape 3.94 .24

Asbestos exposure 3.71 .52

Punitiveness

Prosecutorial process 3-point ordinal scale
(1 = by some non-legal means
2 = in a civil court
3 = In a criminal court)

Consumer safety violations 2.74 .47

Murder 3.0 0

Toxic dumping 2.69 .51

Rape 2.99 .09

Asbestos exposure 2.71 .50

Fine 5-point ordinal scale (0 = no fine; 4 = above
$1,000,000.00)

Consumer safety violations 1.83 1.72

Murder .35 .98

Toxic dumping 2.25 1.75

Rape .35 .96

Asbestos exposure 1.78 1.81

Prison sentence 7-point ordinal scale (0 = no prison;
6 = 41 years-life)

Consumer safety violations .84 1.18

Murder 4.68 1.63

Toxic dumping .94 1.32

Rape 3.26 1.57

Asbestos exposure 1.35 1.79

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 131

123

2011). While financial compensation for completed HITs can sometimes be as low as

$0.10 (Paolacci et al. 2010), a payment of $2.00 per completed survey was offered to

motivate prospective subjects. This strategy paid off, as the sample size goal of 500 was

reached within only 3 h. Incomplete surveys and those completed too quickly (pilot testing

suggested a minimum completion time of about 10 min) were discarded. The final sample

comprised 408 participants. Forty-nine point 8 % of them were women, 83.6 % described

themselves as Whites, 8.8 % as Blacks, 5 % as Asians, 0.5 % as Middle Easterners, 0.5 %

as American Indians or Alaskan Natives, and 0.2 % as Native Hawaiians or Pacific

Islanders. Six point 9 % identified themselves as Hispanics. College graduates (Bachelor’s

degree or higher) represented almost 50 % of the total sample. Those who reported

belonging to no religion accounted for 43.6 % of all subjects. On average, respondents

were politically liberal, 46 % identified themselves as Democrats, and over 80 % reported

using Internet as their main source of information.

Measures

The purpose of the present study is to compare sentiments about physically harmful white-

collar crimes with violent street crimes. The measures included (1) subjects’ perceived

seriousness of these offenses, and (2) their punitiveness toward their respective perpetra-

tors. Table 1 presents these variables and the coding system used to measure them.

Every measure of crime seriousness is in some way inspired by the primary index scale

developed by Sellin and Wolfgang (1964), which included several criminal descriptions in

the form of short crime scenarios, along with a Likert type scale to help respondents

attribute a particular degree of seriousness. A similar methodology was used in the present

study. More specifically, participants were asked to read five vignettes inspired by Ken-

nedy’s ethics scenarios (2010), some of which described violent street crimes and others

harmful white-collar crimes. Violent street crime scenarios included the following:

a. Homicide: ‘‘Someone attempts to rob a couple while they are walking back to their car

at night. The husband tries to disarm the attacker, but is shot by him. He later dies of

his injuries.’’

b. Forcible rape: ‘‘Someone breaks into a dorm at night and forcibly rapes a female

student.’’

Physically harmful white-collar crime scenarios included the following:

1. Consumer safety violations endangering children: ‘‘Because of cost reductions, the

materials used by a company to build a popular toy will present a potential hazard to

the product’s users. The company decides to manufacture and distribute the toy

regardless of the risks.’’

2. Illegal toxic waste disposal: ‘‘In order to increase profits and meet production goals, a

manufacturing company uses production processes that allow for the release of

pollutants into the water and air that exceed legal limits. Several people become

seriously ill as a result.’’

3. Denial of risk and peril by failing to enforce safety measures on the workplace and to

take responsibility for employees’ toxic contamination (‘‘A mining company fails to

ensure safety measures such as proper ventilation and the use of masks, goggles and

gloves among its workers, and covers up evidence regarding the link between asbestos

exposure and lung cancer deaths.’’

132 C. Michel

123

For each scenario, the respondents were asked to (a) rate the seriousness of the offense

(1 = Not very serious, 2 = Somewhat serious, 3 = Serious, and 4 = Very serious),

decide how the case should be handled (1 = By some non-legal means, 2 = In a non-

criminal court, 3 = In a criminal court), and (b) determine the proper societal response

(i.e., punishment) to them. Response options included fine and/or imprisonment. Finally,

subjects were also asked to choose specific dollar amounts for monetary sanctions via a

5-point ordinal scale (0 = No fine, 1 = Under $100,000, 2 = $100,000–$499,000,

3 = $500,000–$999,999, 4 = Above $1,000,000), as well as the number of years for

incarceration via a seven-point ordinal scale (0 = No prison, 1 = 1–5 years,

2 = 6–10 years, 3 = 11–20 years, 4 = 21–30 years, 5 = 31–40 years, 6 = 41 years-

life).

Results

Perceived Seriousness

Contrary to the National White-Collar Crime Center’s survey, comparisons in the present

study were not based on one single reference crime. Rather, paired samples t tests were

used to allow for comparing mean differences in perceived seriousness and punitiveness

between all five scenarios. Table 2 presents the results of paired samples t tests to compare

mean perceived seriousness of scenarios describing both physically injurious white-collar

crimes (i.e., knowingly manufacturing a potentially dangerous toy, releasing deadly pol-

lutants in a river, and knowingly exposing workers to asbestos) and violent street crimes

(i.e., murder and forcible rape). All scenarios have a mean above 3.00, which is the score

meant to represent ‘‘serious’’ offenses. As could be expected, homicide (M = 3.91,

SD = 0.36) and forcible rape (M = 3.94, SD = 0.24) were perceived to be more serious

than the white-collar crimes described. More precisely, the mean for the murder scenario

was statistically higher than those for the defective toy vignette (t = 12.10, p .01,
d = 0.60), the deadly pollutants scenario (t = 11.50, p .01, d = 0.57), and the asbestos
exposure scenario (t = 6.68, p .01, d = 0.33).

Similarly, rape was statistically perceived to be more serious than consumer safety

violation (t = 13.12, p .01, d = 0.65), toxic dumping (t = 12.89, p .01, d = 0.64),
and reckless endangerment of employees (t = 8.13, p .01, d = 0.40). In all cases,
Cohen’s effect sizes suggested small to moderate practical significance. Conversely, the

Table 2 Results of paired samples t tests to compare mean perceived seriousness of white-collar crime and
street crime (N = 408)

Baseline Mean (SD) Toy Murder Pollutants Rape

Toy 3.43 (0.76) – – – –

Murder 3.91 (0.36) 212.10** – – –

Pollutants 3.51 (0.64) 21.98* 11.50** – –

Rape 3.94 (0.24) 213.12** -1.67 212.89** –

Asbestos 3.72 (0.52) 27.76** 6.68** 27.07** 8.13**

A mean of 1 = Not very serious, 2 = Somewhat serious, 3 = Serious, and 4 = Very serious

* p .05; ** p .01

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 133

123

means for the two street crime scenarios were the only ones to not statistically differ from

one another.

Of the three harmful white-collar crime scenarios, the one describing the deliberate

manufacturing of a defective toy (M = 3.43, SD = 0.76) was considered less serious than

the toxic dumping scenario (M = 3.51, SD = 0.64, t = -1.98, p .05, d = -0.10) and
the asbestos exposure scenario (M = 3.72, SD = 0.52, t = -7.76, p .01, d = -0.38).
However, Cohen’s effect sizes were this time smaller. Similarly, releasing deadly pollu-

tants was considered less serious than the reckless endangerment of employees (t = -7.07,

p .01, d = -0.35).
In summation, it appears that subjects in this study considered both types of violent

street crime to be (1) of equal seriousness, and (2) more serious than all three instances of

physically harmful white-collar offenses, which brings support to the first hypothesis under

investigation. What remains to be seen is whether similar differences exist in regard to

punitiveness toward the offenders described in these scenarios.

Punitiveness

The second attitude measured was subjects’ level of punitiveness toward the offenders

described in the abovementioned harmful white-collar crime scenarios compared with the

two violent street crimes. Again, measures of punitiveness included (1) choice of prose-

cution process (i.e., by some non-legal means, in a non-criminal court, or in a criminal

court), (2) punishment for their perpetrators (i.e., fine and/or prison) and (3) sentence

severity (i.e., in dollar amounts and/or number of years in prison).

Prosecutorial Process

Table 3 presents the results of paired samples t tests to compare subjects’ choice of

prosecutorial process for white-collar crime and street crime. First of all, no subject chose

the non-legal means alternative for any of the five scenarios. Conversely, homicide was the

only scenario for which every participant recommended the perpetrator be tried in a

criminal court (M = 3.00, SD = 0.00).

In fact, the murder scenario was the only one to be statistically different from all other

instances of crime described, including white-collar offenses such as consumer safety

violation (M = 2.74, SD = 0.47, t = -11.13, p .01, d = 0.55), toxic dumping
(M = 2.70, SD = 0.51, t = 11.90, p .01, d = 0.59), and asbestos exposure (M = 2.71,

Table 3 Results of paired samples t tests to compare subjects’ choice of prosecutorial process for white-
collar crime and street crime (N = 408)

Baseline Mean (SD) Toy Murder Pollutants Rape

Toy 2.74 (0.47) – – – –

Murder 3.00 (0.00) 211.13** – – –

Pollutants 2.70 (0.51) 1.45 11.90** – –

Rape 2.99 (0.99) 210.37** 2.01* 211.39** –

Asbestos 2.71 (0.50) 1.12 11.75** -0.47 11.34**

A mean of 1 = Non-legal means, 2 = Civil court, and 3 = Criminal court

* p .05; ** p .01

134 C. Michel

123

SD = 0.50, t = 11.75, p .01, d = 0.58), but also—although to a lesser degree—forcible
rape (M = 2.99, SD = 0.99, t = 2.01, p .05, d = 0.10). Further, subjects were statis-
tically more likely to recommend a harsher prosecution process for the rapist than they

were for white-collar offenders in the toy scenario (t = 10.37, p .01, d = 0.51), the
deadly pollutants scenario (t = 11.39, p .01, d = 0.56), and the asbestos exposure
scenario (t = 11.34, p .01, d = 0.56). Nevertheless, there was no statistical difference
between subjects’ choice of prosecutorial process for these three white-collar crimes. More

precisely, participants were more inclined to select a non-criminal court for the perpe-

trators of white-collar offenses, which they perceived to be less serious than murder and

forcible rape.

Monetary Sanction

Similar differences emerged when asking subjects how much, if any, of a fine should be

imposed to the offenders in each scenario. Table 4 presents the results of paired samples

t tests to compare subjects’ choice of fine amount for white-collar crime and street crime.

Once again, murder (M = 2.25, SD = 1.75) and rape (M = 0.35, SD = 0.96) did not

statistically differ from one another. While means for both street crimes are well under

1.00—i.e., the score meant to represent a fine under $100,000—white-collar offenses such

as selling customers a hazardous product (M = 1.83, SD = 1.72), dumping toxic waste

above the legal limit (M = 2.25, SD = 1.75), or being negligent in implementing proper

safety measures in the workplace and denying risk and peril (MD = 1.78, SD = 1.82)

elicited average fine amounts ranging between $100,000 and $499,000.

Large and statistically significant differences were found between the murder scenario

and those that described the defective toy (t = -16.99, p .01, d = -0.84), deadly
pollutants (t = -21.51, p .01, d = -1.06), and asbestos exposure (t = -15.77,
p .01, d = -0.78). Similar differences were found between rape and consumer safety
violation (t = -17.44, p .01, d = -0.86), toxic dumping (t = -21.68, p .01,
d = -1.07), and the reckless endangerment of employees (t = -16.99, p .01,
d = -0.84). While the defective toy scenario slightly differed from the deadly pollutants

one (t = -5.21, p .01, d = -0.26), it was not statistically different from the asbestos
vignette. Conversely, the work-related disease scenario elicited a smaller fine amount

compared with the toxic dumping scenario (t = -5.53, p .01, d = -0.27). In short, it
seems that subjects were more inclined to choose a higher fine amount against white-collar

Table 4 Results of paired samples t tests to compare subjects’ choice of fine amount for white-collar crime
and street crime (N = 408)

Baseline Mean (SD) Toy Murder Pollutants Rape

Toy 1.83 (1.72) – – – –

Murder 0.35 (0.98) 16.99** – – –

Pollutants 2.25 (1.75) 25.21** 221.51** – –

Rape 0.35 (0.96) 17.44** 0.22 21.68** –

Asbestos 1.78 (1.82) 0.65 215.77** 5.53** 216.99**

A mean of 0 = No fine, 1 = Under $100,000, 2 = $100,000–499,000, 3 = $500,000–1,000,000, and
4 = Above $1,000,000

* p .05; ** p .01

Violent Street Crime Versus Harmful White-Collar Crime: A… 135

123

offenders (particularly the company responsible for polluting over the legal limit) than they

were against the murderer and rapist.

In summation, respondents in this study were more prone to recommend higher financial

sanctions against those responsible in the white-collar crime vignettes. While supporting

greater economic sanctions against white-collar crime than street crime seems logical,

what remains to be seen is whether respondents chose to punish white-collar offenders and

street offenders with equally long prison sentences.

Prison Sentence

Table 5 presents the results of paired samples t tests to compare mean prison sentence

severity for white-collar crime and street crime. In other words, …